Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Friday, 21 October 1949

Dr EVATT (BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES) (Attorney-General) - -I have not seen the report to which the honorable gentleman has referred, but it appears to be substantially correct. A Very keen dispute has arisen in the General Assembly in connexion with the selection of a nation to replace the Ukrainian republic, which is one of the eastern group of nations, as a member of the Security Council. Under the terms of the Charter, the practice, has been, having regard to geographical distribution and other matters, that, in addition to the Soviet Union, one nation from the eastern group of nations shall be a member of the Security Council. The contest between Czechoslovakia, which is the nominee of the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia has developed into a very acute one.

Mr McEWEN (INDI, VICTORIA) - Geographically, there is nothing in it.

Dr EVATT - I agree with the honorable member for Indi that, geographically, there is nothing in it. So far as contributions to the war against Hitler are concerned, I consider that the contribution of Yugoslavia was much greater than that of Czechoslovakia. Australia was asked to support the election of Yugoslavia. According to the report of the Balkans Commission, there is no doubt that the attitude of that country to Greece has greatly improved. There are other aspects of the matter that must be considered, apart from the terms of the Charter. The view of the Australian Government and of the Australian delegation is that we should accord our support to Yugoslavia, and we have done so. The vote should have been taken by now. I do not expect that any powerwill withdraw from the Security Council if Yugoslavia is elected as a member. I do not regard the threat that has been made by Russia as being more than a. campaign measure.

Suggest corrections